everyone who reads this blog knows full well how i feel about the death penalty, and saddam hussein in particular. But if you ever needed even further argument against public execution, here’s one:

three kids die imitating saddam hussein’s hanging.

i’ve said it numerous times here. violence begets more violence, killing begets more killing. you reap what you sow – even when it’s something as tragic as death. but children should never have to be the victims.

Like this post

Unlike

death penalty, saddam hussein, public execution

there was a news story out today about a girl with profound disabilities whose parents have elected to permanently stunt her growth.

Parents of a severely disabled girl in the US have revealed that they are keeping her child-sized in order to give her a better life.
The nine-year-old, named Ashley, has the mental ability of a three-month-old baby and cannot walk or talk.

Her parents decided on a course of treatment for her which has involved hormone doses to limit her growth, as well as uterine and breast surgery.

They say the treatment will help to improve her quality of life.

I can’t begin to say how appalling I find this. As someone who has worked for people with disabilities for virutally my entire career, (including many years of physical assistance for adults – cleaning, feeding, dressing and toileting), I find it completely unconscionable that we’re willing to allow this to be done. And the most galling bit is that as a society we would never in a million years allow this to happen to someone without learning disabilities.

She doesn’t have the mind of a three month old – she has the mind of a 9 year old with profound learning disabilities. And so pretending that it’s fine because people who don’t understand learning disabilities interpret it as simply “matching a body to a mental age” is to deprive this girl of the right to be who she truly is – a girl who will eventually be a woman, whether she physically grows or not. As a human she has the right to primacy and control of her own body. She has the right to experience adulthood and fertility, even if she can’t understand them.

There are millions of adults with limited or no mobility, who get around and experience life – most of them *don’t* have learning disabilities. Should they have been kept stunted and asexual? Would anyone dare to suggest they should have?

Some have made the argument that the girl will get better care if she is physically small – that this will allow the parents to keep her out of crappy state care.

The fact that some people get crappy care, however, (and admittedly some do), is not reason enough to try to make caring for people with disabilities easier for us by *changing the person with the disability* . We don’t get to electively take away someone’s development and strip them of their sexuality, simply because we can’t improve our care systems. We don’t get to go changing the person with the disability simply because it’s easier than changing the support structures which are broken. We shouldn’t get to take away someone’s right to be who they were intended because of our own fears and failings.

If we do that, we’ve failed them twice.

(And let me be clear – I’m not passing judgement on the parents, as misguided as this is. Every parent has differing abilites to cope – though I’ve known many who did more than I ever could (I am reminded of a widowed mother I worked with who had 3 adult children with profound disabilities living with her at home and still remained cheery!) I *am*, however passing judgement on the doctors who decided to go along with this. They’ve set a dangerous precedent, and as medical professionals should know better.)

Like this post

Unlike

ashley, disabilities, , stunted growth, learning disabilities

i was all set to write yet another scathing post about the increases on the tube (now at a lovely £4 [up 33%!!!], equivalent of nearly $8 just for a single journey into central london, and strikes scheduled for alter this month!!! what a fucking joke for a subway which barely even runs.)

but there’s this: will the massachusetts legislature have the courage of their convictions and refuse to call a vote on banning gay marriage under the state constitution, on this, the last day of the legislative session? will they have the courage to stand up for the rights of the 8,000 married gay couples who have been living in wedded bliss for two years?

The newly elected governor said this:

“This is not just another question for popular decision. This is a question, under the equal protection clause, about what freedoms the minority is entitled to,” Patrick told reporters after meeting with DiMasi. “This is the first time that the petition process has ever been used to consider reinserting discrimination into the constitution.”

The legislature has, to this point, tried to avoid a vote on the issue.

I can only hope they dig deep, consult their conscience, and do what they know in their heart to be right – to protect the rights of *all* massachusetts citizens, regardless of sexual orientation. everyone deserves the right to marry the person they love. gays deserve nothing less than what every other couple has – the right to be part of a legal family. the right to stand up before the world and be united and recognised and counted as equals.

so i only hope that the lawmakers of the state will take a few minutes to stop and think about what it feels like to fall head over heels in love and want to be married and live happily ever after with the person of their dreams. and then find the courage to stand their ground in the face of everyone who would want to tell others that they’re not entitled to that same dream – because they’re gay.

update: : igh:: clearly I overestimated their collective backbone…

Lawmakers in Massachusetts, the only state where gay marriage is legal, just voted to advance a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, a critical step toward putting the measure on the 2008 ballot. The Legislature approved the measure 132-61. The initiative, which only needed 50 votes to pass, must still be passed in the next legislative session before it will be put on the ballot in 2008.

Like this post

Unlike

massachusetts, vote, gay marriage

argh. I wrote a great post and my dying computer lost it. the below isn’t quite up to snuff, but it’s the best i could re-create.

i am tired of the anti-muslim prejudice which is not only condoned, but encouraged by the blair government as a placebo for dealing with the real problem of terrorism. they continue to blame cultural differences for the rash of extremism, rather than grappling with the much more complex roots which are harder to identify and address.

tony blair’s speech yesterday tried to pay lip service to the notion of multiculturalism and the challenges that extremism provides in that setting. but as usual, he misses the boat when he mistakenly *attributes* extremism to being a product of a multicultural society. and once again he picks on an easily identifiable symbol of fundamental cultural differences: the veil.

In Tunisia and Malaysia, the veil is barred in certain public places. I know it is not sensible to conduct this debate as if the only issue is the very hot and sensitive one of the veil. For one thing, the extremism we face is usually from men not women. But it is interesting to note that when Jack Straw made his comments, no less a person than the Mufti of the Arab Republic of Egypt made a strong approving statement; and it really is a matter of plain common sense that when it is an essential part of someone’s work to communicate directly with people, being able to see their face is important.

blair consistently uses the veil as an example of a culture clash, but the notion that it’s not acceptable etiquette in the u.k. is a farcical double standard. people in the uk cover their heads and faces all the time (giant sunglasses, hoodies, scarves) and no one perceives it as an affront to british culture or an impediment to communication. it’s also not about women being seen as lesser valued beings – britain pays women 20% less than men and no one bats an eyelash at that.

what it’s about is the fact that this is an identifiable mark of difference as a devout, non-westernised muslim. and the government continues to equate non-westernised islam with potential terrorism.

the problem has always been, and continues to be, that in reality terrorism has nothing to do with clashes of culture, but rather clashes of ideology. the problem is it’s a clash which cannot be fixed no matter how much “integration and conformity” are promoted, because the terrorist ideology absolutely *rejects anything which does not explicitly support its own beliefs*. Full stop. the terrorist ideology has nothing to do with islam. blair acknowledges this when he says, “Of course the extremists that threaten violence are not true Muslims in the sense of being true to the proper teaching of Islam ” but undoes his own affirmation in the next sentence, “But it’s daft to deny the fact that they justify their extremism by reference to religious belief.”

in essence, we know terrorism has nothing to do with islam. But terrorists identify as muslim, therefore islam must be responsible.

blair is unable to solve his own self-created conundrum, and so sidesteps his own circular logic by falling back on the easy excuse of cultural plurality and the symbollic distinctions. it’s all smoke and mirrors – a diversion to convince the public that they’re somehow *doing something positive* for the social fabric of britain’s future, when in fact they’ve completely missed the forest for the trees. the fallout of that is that it has become acceptable to discriminate in the name of “shared values”.

blair claims britain protects “the right to be different”. his repeated attack on the veil proves nothing could be further from the truth.

Like this post

Unlike

in spite of my penchant for politics, I haven’t written much about iraq here in this blog. mostly because i really can’t be trusted to contain myself or even string my words together coherently, so strong are my emotions. i think, however, that few readers would have a difficult time guessing how I feel – so analysing the runaway train that is the Iraq war seems pretty pointless.

since the midterm elections, though, i’ve been reading a lot of renewed disappointment and disillusionment and just plain old anger. it’s almost as if the nation’s tacit acknowledgement that things have gone horribly awry – that things, in fact, *must change now* – has reopened a deep wound. because for the past 3 years, whether you agreed with the stated objectives or methods or rationale for iraq, it was a moot point. we were already there, bombs were dropping, armies were invading, and there was nothing to be done. war had already been committed, and the most we could hope for was minimisation.

yet, in front our eyes, things got way out of hand. things spun completely out of control. story after story confirmed our fears that, far from improving, the situation was instead rapidly devolving into chaos and corruption. we saw it happen, and felt powerless to stop it. instead, we re-elected bush and hoped for the best.

so i’m not quite sure why the penny finally dropped on election tuesday. perhaps it was abu ghraib, or guantanamo. perhaps it was the ever increasing number of flag-draped coffins. maybe it was just the collective national conscience. maybe all or none of these things. doesn’t matter. after all, the straw that broke the camel’s back is pretty immaterial, isn’t it?

but there’s something about the administration *finally* acknowledging that things are untenable, that has touched a deep chord in people. Even people who’d thought they’d come to terms with the idea of failure, who’d long since written off iraq as a dismal fuck up. There’s anger there, just below the surface.

andy writes:

The time for feeling smug about my vociferous pre-war opposition to George Bush’s Iraq adventure has long since passed, if there ever was such a time. It became apparent some time ago that not only is America going to ‘lose’ in Iraq (due to the persistent insurgency) but that barring unforseen miracles, Iraq is going to tear itself apart… This descent into civil war in Iraq is much more serious to me than America’s (or my own) pride, and despite my antipathy toward the current American government, I truly, honestly never wanted to see this project fail so disasterously — indeed, I wouldn’t have thought it possible. The indifference to the magnitude of the task at hand, the ineptitude, and the incompetence, are staggering.

even more pointedly, the vol abroad asks: do y’all feel fooled?

I’m not gloating. I don’t think very many people in America really wanted to see us fail to achieve altruistic or even patriotic objectives in Iraq and the region. I think this has damaged America… But when I realised it was a passle of lies, incompetence and self-delusion, I felt fooled. I felt pretty angry with myself. Even worse, I felt angry with Bush and Blair for making me look stupid for believing them in the eyes of the Marxists and Islamists and woolly-headed leftists.

i think Vol Abroad has touched on something there that’s even more profound than we realise, and that is *just how much* this has damaged america. i think the insurgency happening in our own country speaks to even more than that. this has not just hurt america – it has hurt *americans*.

we’re part of the walking wounded in this war. for as long as it continues.

maybe that realisation was the straw.

Like this post

Unlike

last year, i shared these facts:

– there are more than 40 million people living with hiv and aids
– 23 million people have died
– global spending on hiv research is $3 billion
– u.s. spending on bird flu is $7 billion
– 8000 people per day die of aids
– in the minute it takes you to read this post, 5 people will have died
– in zimbabwe the hiv infection rate is 33% – that’s one in every three people
– more than a half million children died of aids in 2005
– if we continue on this way, there will be 45 million more infected by 2010.

another 3 million people died since i last posted those figures.
more than 15 million children are aids orphans.
2 million kids are living with hiv.
and india now has the largest hiv/aids population.

but really this year, there’s only one statistic you need to know:

this year, do something. anything. please. it’s unconscionable that we continue to allow this to happen.

donate. motivate. participate.

because every day is world aids day.

Like this post

Unlike

hiv, aids, epidemic, statistics, world aids day

it’s been a bad week to be gay in america.

while i don’t usually quote editorials here, derrik z. jackson of the boston globe has written a piece about “the antigay obsession” that’s too good to ignore. when will people stop promoting homophobia for political ends and start putting time and attention into the things that really matter?

The antigay obsession

By Derrick Z. Jackson, Globe Columnist | November 18, 2006

ALL IN THE same week, Governor Mitt Romney, the US Catholic bishops, the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina, and the Presbyterian Church USA drove themselves nuts over homosexuality.

Here in Massachusetts, despite ample evidence that two years of same-sex marriage have not destroyed straight life in the Commonwealth, Romney is helping plan a rally tomorrow for a statewide referendum to ban it. A month ago, in one of his sky-is-falling speeches, Romney said “activist judges struck a blow to the foundation of civilization, the family.” He went so far as to say, “The price of same-sex marriage is paid by the children.”

In Washington, the bishops passed a bizarre set of guidelines called, “Ministry to Persons with a Homosexual Inclination.” In the same breath, they claim to be “welcoming” to gay and lesbian people, then tell them to be chaste and stay in the closet about their sexual orientation. The bishops remain resolute that being gay or lesbian is “disordered.”

The Baptist State Convention of North Carolina voted to expel congregations that affirm homosexuality period, let alone gay marriage. “In our day and time, no other sin marches so defiantly across our national landscape,” expulsion proponent Mark Harris was quoted as saying in The Washington Post. The Presbyterian Church was so fearful of this “march” of “sin” that it was going to put the Rev. Janet Edwards on trial for marrying a same-sex couple. Charges were brought too late and were dropped.

If you ask me, Noah should load up all these folks in the ark and drop them off in South Africa.

While all this nuttiness was going on here, the South African parliament this week voted 230-41 to legalize same-sex marriage. This vote came after South Africa’s highest court ruled that existing marriage laws discriminated against gay and lesbian couples. The post-apartheid South African Constitution passed about a decade ago was noteworthy for being the first in the world to explicitly outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

South African Defense Minister Mosuia Lekota was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, “The roots of this bill lie in many years of struggle. . . . This country cannot afford to be a prison of timeworn prejudices which have no basis in modern society. Let us bequeath to future generations a society which is more democratic and tolerant than the one that was handed down to us.”

The tone of affirmation in South Africa had been set years before by the likes of former South African President Nelson Mandela, who lost a son to AIDS, and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu, who has repeatedly criticized homophobia in the church. “This is crazy,” the retired archbishop said eight years ago. “We say the expression of love in a monogamous, heterosexual relationship is more than just the physical but includes touching, embracing, kissing, maybe the genital act. The totality of this makes each of us grow to become giving, increasingly God-like and compassionate.

“If it is so for the heterosexual, what earthly reason have we to say that it is not the case with the homosexual, provided the relationship is exclusive, not promiscuous?”

John Allen, Tutu’s former press secretary and biographer, last month said Tutu “found it a little short of outrageous that church leaders should be obsessed with issues of sexuality in the face of the challenges of AIDS and global poverty. Too many South Africans remember that homosexuals were imprisoned for their sexual orientation, alongside Mandela. Tutu’s successor as archbishop, Njongonkulu Ndungane, has continued to voice a similar message.

Referring to the consecration of Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson in New Hampshire in 2003, Ndungane told The Washington Post last spring, “The Anglican Communion should be on the forefront of fighting social ills and not bothering about what Gene Robinson may be doing or not doing.” Ndungane, himself a former political prisoner at Robben Island, added, “One of the key things that we have learned both as a country and as a church is the principle of nondiscrimination, because the people who were discriminated against (under apartheid) were judged on things they couldn’t alter.”

Compared with that kind of thinking in South Africa, Romney and American church leaders who are trying to lead a backlash seem more like they have too much time on their hands. Romney is known for saying gay marriage would turn Massachusetts into a Las Vegas for such events. It is time to stop judging things he cannot alter.

Like this post

Unlike

massachusetts, homophobia, catholicism, gay marriage, mitt romney

as often as i rail against the appalling record on women’s rights by the u.s. and u.k. government, there are times when i am confronted with just how much worse it really can be. when i realise how grateful i am that a capricious and random stroke of luck determined my citizenship in a modern, westernised, developed country.

because i could have been born in nicaragua, where women’s lives are considered so expendable that they are allowed to die rather than have access to an abortion.. their real, actual lives as daughters/mothers/wives/sisters are less important than the potential (yet dependent) life of a fetus which may kill her. women are so often on the very lowest rung of society’s ladder – and now, in nicaragua, they come even lower than a fetus which has yet to be even a baby. how many women will this government kill through deliberate medical neglect? women have been relegated to the role of vessel – their lives are of no consequence if they have a risky or dangerous pregnancy.

what should be our greatest source of strength – the ability to bring life into the world – instead becomes our potential death sentence. it’s abhorrently misogynistic – and sadly, not the least bit surprising. because on the last rung of the ladder, who ever notices when you finally fall off?

Like this post

Unlike

nicaragua, abortion, women's rights

i’ve written before about my disdain for the “hate speech” laws in this country. they’re completely ineffective at protecting people, they only serve to smooth the surface by covering up the extent of racism that really exists, and they’re completely and utterly subjective in application.

take, for instance the following two examples which occured within days of each other.

BNP party leader Nick Griffin was cleared of charges of “inciting racial hatred” after being caught on tape as calling Islam a “wicked, vicious faith” and saying Muslims were turning Britain into a “multi-racial hell hole”.

Mizanur rahman, was convicted of charges of inciting racial hatred after participating in a protest march on the danish embassy (during the mohammed cartoon furor) carrying placards reading “Behead those who insult Islam” and “Annihilate those who insult Islam”.

in comparing the two instances, what appears to be the critical difference? is it the word “behead”? is it the difference between writing something down and just verbalising it? is it the fact that even though Mr. Griffin’s target audience was 90% of britain, and mr. rahman’s less than 10%, there is a perception that muslims are more easily swayed to commit violence? is it the fact that it’s more widely acceptable these days to insult the islamic faith? if you were muslim, wouldn’t you chafe at the inequity? and if you were a muslim predisposed to violence, wouldn’t you find this ample fuel for your fire?

what exactly differentiates one message from another from a legal standpoint? i can’t pinpoint it, and i doubt that your average citizen could either. in which case, how are we to know exactly what’s allowable by law, and what’s not? what good is a law that the public can’t understand? and how can it possibly be enforced in an equitable manner?

lord goldsmith calls it a “gap in the law” that needs to be looked at. i call it a hole in common sense big enough to drive a truck through. Chancellor Gordon Brown said stronger laws might be necessary to include religious as well as race-related offences. I say, let’s do away with this ineffective and unequal law, before it causes more harm than good.

Like this post

Unlike

islam, bnp, , racial hatred law, hate speech

In yesterday’s news: british prisoners have sued the government, and received monetary compensation for being forced to go through heroin withdrawals when taken off their methadone whilst in jail. this has caused quite a stir, particularly at the allegations that the prisoners had their human rights violated.

Former Conservative prisons minister Ann Widdecombe said the settlement was “an insult to every victim and every law abiding person”.

“As far as I’m concerned there is no human right to continue a drug habit when you go to prison.”

and at first blush, this claim *does* seem rather ludicrous. after all, if you don’t want to suffer the pains of withdrawals, a) don’t get addicted to illegal drugs in the first place and b) definitely don’t get your ass thrown in jail. there is little public sympathy for the drug-addled heroin user who lands himself behind bars, because as a society we’ve chosen to criminalise addiction – and ignore that this directly contributes to forcing addicts into other crime to support their habit. but that’s the way the law currently stands, and therefore, as the saying goes, “don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”. jail is not meant to be a rehab facility, and tough luck to those who end up in the slammer and can’t get their fix. right?

but hold your indignation just a minute, because on further examination, it’s not quite so cut and dry. the claim of “human rights violation” has real teeth – and that’s not such a bad thing because it protects us all. consider, for example, the nhs. the rationale behind socialised medicine, and the reason all residents of britain receive free health care courtesy of the national health service, is because we support the belief that access to medical care is a human right. it is available to everyone who lives in the u.k., free of any eligibility criteria or financial obligation, because there is a common belief that caring for one’s personal health is not a luxury tied to a socio-economic class system. it is an *entitlement* of being human. it is not a “freedom” which one can be stripped of simply by virtue of having their physical space restricted. it is not something which can be either voluntarily or involuntarily surrendered. it is not even something limited to the boundaries of great britain. it is a *right* of one’s being as much as breathing. and that’s why we’ve decided to legally protect access to health care for all, regardless of personal circumstance. you can be rich, homeless, or incarcerated – and you’re still *entitled* to the same medical treatment.

“Prisoners have the right to receive exactly the same type and standard of healthcare in prison as they would receive in the community,”

And this is as clear as it gets. while we have decided we have the right to deprive criminals of their liberty, we have no right to deprive them of needed treatment. we’re not allowed to shortchange them of addiction help just because they’re in jail – because it’s the same entitlement you or i have as non-criminals. if we start imposing differing criteria or quality for prisoners, we must re-examine the entire philosophy the system is based upon. and that would spell bad news for those of us who’ve ever been unemployed, or ill with what could be considered “pre-existing conditions”. if we start changing the principle of “equal access to all”, it is no longer a human right, but a conditional priviledge. i’ve lived under that system for most of my life in the states – and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. the fear of not being able to access care is a horrible feeling.

so we should be thankful for this decision – because it means someone is still watching out for the interests of even those whom society views as repugnant. those same safeguards that protect the human right to proper health, protect all of us. and for that, i am personally extremely grateful.

Like this post

Unlike

addiction, treatment, settlement, prisoners' rights

in the run-up to “remembrance sunday” the annual poppies have been everywhere you look, and no more so than on television. i recently asked j, only half in jest, “are you even *allowed* to be in front of the camera without a poppy on?” turns out, I was closer to the mark than i’d guessed.

for my stateside readers, a little explanation: here in the u.k., the holiday equivalent of the u.s. memorial day and/or veteran’s day is armistice day (on the 11th November) and the following “remembrance sunday” – a day to reflect upon the losses of war and thank those who have given service to the country. the annual campaign which accompanies this holiday is known as the “poppy campaign” – a fundraising drive to support veterans’ charities, where support is signified by wearing a red felt poppy on one’s lapel. the poppy, of course, refers to the famous “flanders fields” poem, as well as the symbollic colours of red for shed blood, and black for mourning.

in recent years, however, the red poppy has become something of a symbol of political correctness. much like the big “support the troops” bumper stickers which have become ubiquitous in the states (aside: on an interesting cultural note, brits do not, as a rule, decorate with bumper stickers of any kind – but that’s a topic for another post), it seems that almost everyone wears one. whether this has been on the rise since the start of the iraq war, i can’t say, but i have definitely noted a sharp increase in the few years i’ve been here to see it.

but this year in particular, along with the blooming lapels, there has been a blooming controversy. because when almost every person you see is wearing one, it’s those who *aren’t* who begin to stand out. most notably, the t.v. newsreporter jon snow was called to task for refusing to wear one on camera. in his defence against “poppy fascism” he’s said he doesn’t believe newsreaders should make political statements of any kind while on air.

Mr Snow said: “I am begged to wear an Aids Ribbon, a breast cancer ribbon, a Marie Curie flower… You name it, from the Red Cross to the RNIB, they send me stuff to wear to raise awareness, and I don’t. And in those terms, and those terms alone, I do not and will not wear a poppy.”

and i absolutely agree. the poppy furor has also widely encompassed: outrage at those from the black community who refuse to wear one because black contributions to the armed services have not been historically recognised; outrage at those who choose to wear a white poppy as a symbol of peace; and Camilla’s failure to wear a poppy on her visit to pakistan. the poppy pother is out of control.

at what point did being politically correct become mandatory? it reminds me very much of the recent stance taken by so many americans in supporting the iraq war – the idea that “if you’re not with us, you’re against us”. dissent by omission is not an option. and i wager that if the british only realised how closely this “poppy fascism” resembled the wave of blind “yellow ribbon” conformity that overtook the u.s. post-9/11, they would drop those lapel pins in a heartbeat.

personally, i will never wear a poppy. as a pacifist, i cannot in any way, shape, or form condone war or violence. whilst i am saddened that so many people have needlessly lost their lives, i cannot tacitly acknowledge the presumption that their deaths had meaning or served a purpose. to my mind, they didn’t. they don’t. and i won’t.

but it seems that i’ll have to beware the poppy police. and thank god i’m not on television.

Like this post

Unlike

poppy controversy, remembrance sunday

my spirits continue to rise.

- the first female speaker of the house
- dems winning the senate
- and the icing on the cake, the resignation of rumsfeld

i didn’t have a blog back in march 2003 when bush began bombing iraq, but the moment that war began is forever frozen in memory for me. i can’t begin to describe the utter desperate revulsion, shame and fury i felt, all at once. i wanted to peel my skin off just to be shed of its association with massacre. i wanted to *do* something. i couldn’t just sit there and let it happen without some protest on my part – an individual statement of horror and adamant objection. and i would have been protesting in the street at the first opportunity – except that i was so worried something would happen to jeopardise my move to the uk in two weeks time. i felt like my hands were tied. it was horrible.

i wrote this later that day in my journal:

war has started.

i want to scream.
i want to shout.
i want to throw myself in front of the planes if only to slow the killing by my small act of resistance. i can’t believe they are killing people in my name, as an american citizen – yet somehow i believe it deep within the grief of my bones.

my outrage sputters against the dark.

i moved to london 2 weeks after that, and since that day every time i turn around the news just gets worse and worse. every time i hear it, my heart my stomach my morale just sinks. i never thought bottom could ever get this far down.

but finally, there is reason – to think the pendulum might start to swing back, to think we’ve hit the bottom and are trying to surface, to think that maybe we’ve lifted the moratorium on questions, to think that maybe we’ve had enough fear and frustration, death and despair.

maybe we finally want more from our government, ourselves.

maybe hope floats.

Like this post

Unlike

rumsfeld, senate, house, iraq war, midterm elections

a huge thank you to: south dakota, for showing common sense even when your leaders have none.

shame on: Idaho, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, South Dakota, Colorado, and Wisconsin for banning same sex marriage. you may constitutionally restrict “marriage”, but you will never be able to legislate who someone falls in love with.

boo hiss for: arizona, who in a demonstration of pure xenophobia voted to make english the official language of the state. too bad no one remembered their *own* immigrant origins.

and a hearty congrats to: massachusetts, for getting back to your democratic roots and electing the state’s first black governor. I couldn’t agree more when he said, “This was not a victory just for me. This was not a victory just for Democrats. This was a victory for hope.”

it’s such a nice change to wake up in the morning with a tiny hint of cautious optimism. i only vaguely remember what it feels like… but i could certainly get used to it.

Like this post

Unlike

midterm, polls, election, arizona, abortion, massachusetts, , election results, south dakota

as expected, saddam was sentenced to death yesterday. what a farce.

The u.s. only “allowed” Iraq to try him because it was the easiest way of killing him without turning him into a martyr. Make no mistake, this is a proxy execution.

I’ve had lots of people question my anti-death penalty stance with hypotheticals: “what about if it was hitler?” “what if it would save innocent people’s lives?” “why doesn’t ending genocide justify even one death?” Many would say that this is a test case for exactly that kind of scenario.

And I can continue to give no other answer but this: death and the justice system cannot co-exist in a civilised society. No one will ever convince me that murder is a rational, thinking crime which can therefore be deterred by the threat of execution. Murderers are rarely logical people. No one will ever convince me that even if we could prove guilt with 100% certainty, that that gives us the right to kill another human. Guilty or not, I don’t ever want the responsibility of participating in death – I can’t live with that on my conscience. It makes me no better than the killer I abhor.

The only thing which will halt the machinery of death in this world – whether through war, genocide, or willful abject neglect – is when we stop trying to use the machine to our own purposes. we may believe that we have the right and ability to control it – but it controls us. we become a part of it. all our “good intentions” or moral arguments for the “marginal cost of death prevention” matter not – it bloodies our hands the same, no matter how just we believe our actions. and in that way, death turns us into something less that what we aspire to be – it does not elevate us, but vitiates our humanity at the most fundamental level. by devaluing a person’s life, we intrinsically cheapen our own.

it is impossible to kill and not become, by definition, a killer.

and i don’t think that’s something any society, justice system, or individual should ever participate in willingly, even gleefully. vengeance is never justified. and that’s all the death penalty ever is – legalised vengeance.

it’s not that saddam hussein deserves better – it’s that *we* do.

Like this post

Unlike

justice, iraq, war, , saddam hussein, death penalty

pay attention folks: this is the most chilling thing i’ve heard a politician say (and considering our president, that’s saying something)

i usually try to forget that i voluntarily live in a country where everyone is considered guilty until proven innocent – because that’s really the rationale behind so much of the u.k.’s law enforcement. cctv cameras exists because the average citizen on the street *might* commit a crime. speed cameras are there because you *probably* will commit some traffic infraction. t.v. licensing enforcement officers come to your doorstep because you *probably* own a television.

and already they take and keep your dna sample even if you’re falsely arrested. if the police apprehend the wrong person, or you are falsely accused you are still a likely suspect for the rest of your life and no longer allowed even the privacy of your most basic cellular information. you may not know if you have the breast cancer gene, or if you’ll go bald at 40 because your mother has passed along that trait – but the police do.

but even this egregious infringement of the most basic right to privacy over one’s body pales in comparison to the evil proposition mr. blair has put forth. which is, in a nutshell: let’s treat everyone like a criminal. every innocent grandmother, every newborn baby, every good samaritan… let’s do away with even the most tacit notion of innocence, and treat them all like potential murderers.

that’s not the scariest bit.

the scariest bit is that if they were suggesting keeping a database of sphincter photos as a potential means of using “technological advances to reopen thousands of unresolved ‘cold cases’”, i have absolutely no doubt that most of britain would be lining up to spread their cheeks for the camera.

the scariest bit is that “The UK has the largest database in the world and is drawing attention from countries throughout Europe keen to learn from its experience”.

mr. blair you will not get so much as a single eyelash from me. i will move as far away as humanly possible before i give you a cheek swab.

and in case i left any doubt as to my opinion on you and your stinkin’ database… well you can kiss my *other* big fat white cheeks.

(edited to add j’s response: grabs his crotch and says “i got ya dna sample right here”. now i ask you, how charming is my husband?)

Like this post

Unlike

dna, crime, database, dna database, tony blair, law enforcement, civil rights

you don’t like the laws on civil rights preventing torture or the way the justice system works? apparently it’s a simple matter to change them to suit your agenda – if you’re president bush and don’t mind the pesky matter of the geneva convention, american constitution, or, y’know, a moral conscience.

The law bans US agents from inflicting severe physical or mental pain and using torture during interrogations. But it gives the White House wide latitude to define what constitutes torture and “cruel treatment” under the Geneva Conventions, and it effectively grants legal amnesty to White House officials who authorized harsh techniques in the past to protect CIA agents who have reportedly used mock drownings, sleep deprivation, and hypothermia during interrogations …

Critics of the new law, however, contend that it denies justice for detainees because it cuts off access to federal courts. The vast majority of the 450 detainees in Guantanamo, critics say, are not accused of terrorist acts and are unlikely to ever stand trial, and their only recourse had been to file petitions in federal court challenging their detentions.

The new law now blocks the court from hearing those petitions. Yesterday, the Department of Justice immediately sent a letter to a US appeals court in Washington announcing that the Guantanamo detainees no longer have access to the court.

Senator Feingold put a fine point on it:

“The legislation signed by the President today violates basic principles and values of our constitutional system of government. It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court. And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death.

The checks and balances of our system of government and the fundamental fairness of the American people and legal system are among our greatest strengths in the fight against terrorism. I am deeply disappointed that Congress enacted this law. We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation’s history.”

I think this is as gross a violation of civil rights as executive order 9066. that would be the one that “interred” (read: imprisoned) 120,000 americans without cause or recourse. it took 50 years for the government to apologise for that one.

i would have hoped we’d learned more from that shameful mistake – because the way to protect and uphold our rights as a country should never, ever come through depriving other people of theirs.

we’re supposed to be better than that.

Like this post

Unlike

bush, torture, guantanamo, , military commissions act

oh my life. sitting here noodling on the computer whilst the news is on in the background and mr. blair is blathering on, when suddenly my ears perk up and i hear him say “we must empower moderate muslims to fight against extremists.”

um, exsqueeze me? baking powder?

if i’m a “moderate muslim” sitting at home, minding my business, paying my taxes, and generally being a good person, why the hell is it *my* obligation to do something about a bunch of nutters who have sweet-fuck-all to do with my life or anything i belive in or stand for? no one tells “moderate christians” that they are somehow responsible for solving the problem of crazy anti-abortionists who shoot people. or that “moderate jews” need to address hard-line israelis who think pre-emptive assasinations of palestinians are okay.

what prejudicial bullshit. a bunch of crazy muslims do a bunch of crazy things that our thoroughly inept but elected and financed government is helpless to do anything about… and suddenly the whole stinking mess is thrown into the laps of the average decent muslim citizens, and told they have to sort it out themselves. wtf? i’d be absolutely irate.

another gem from the press conference: blair says the veil some muslim women wear is a mark of separation which makes others uncomfortable, therefore we must help them “integrate” into western society. a) duh. of course it’s a symbol of separation and differentiation – that’s the point. b) facial tattoos and piercings are done for the same effect and make people uncomfortable, but no one is all up in arms about *those* and c) people do not *have* to “integrate” into society if they don’t want to. i don’t think the fact that it makes *us* uncomfortable means *they* should change. society will just have to learn to deal… the same way it has dealt with other things which make people uncomfortable – like gays, interracial marriage, and other cultural clashes. maybe it is deliberately provocative – but so are a lot of other things. and it’s not going away just because we dislike it.

anyway, i’m back in london now, as you may have surmised. the world tour is officially over now, and lots to talk about since i’ve been away! so stay tuned…

Like this post

Unlike

the washington post says:

The Bush administration is studying options for military strikes against Iran as part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy to pressure Tehran to abandon its alleged nuclear development program, according to U.S. officials and independent analysts.

…

Although a land invasion is not contemplated, military officers are weighing alternatives ranging from a limited airstrike aimed at key nuclear sites, to a more extensive bombing campaign designed to destroy an array of military and political targets.

bush says:

“By the way I read the articles in the newspapers and it was just wild speculation… What you’re reading is wild speculation.”

iran says:

“Our enemies know that they can’t cause a minute’s pause in our nation’s motion forward. Unfortunately today some bullying powers are unable to give up their bullying nature. The future will prove that our path was a right way.”

why am i having flashbacks?

Like this post

Unlike

anita roddick, founder of “the body shop”, who built her fortune on mass-marketing ethically produced non-animal-tested products, just sold her chain to corporate cosmetics giant l’oreal.

Ms Roddick said she had an issue with L’Oréal over animal testing but that the firm had “a great statement about what they’re doing on animal testing or what they are trying to do”. She said the assumption that L’Oréal was the “enemy” was “quite wrong”.

are people’s values and beliefs so flexible these days that they’re always susceptible to any amount of monetary wooing? are we still surprised? should we be?

selling out has become so endemic, it hardly seems remarkable any more. we live in a world where anything is for sale – even more so if it can be used to sell something else. long gone is the furor over iconic songs being used to sell expensive athletic shoes, and african supermodels endorsing ethically dirty diamond companies which pillage the land and abuse workers hardly gets a newspaper mention. these days, janis joplin sings a “piece of her heart” for cadbury’s. Ozzy osbourne, the self-titled “prince of darkness” associated with satanism, endorses a butter substitute. The great Pablo Picasso’s inimitable signature is emblazoned on the back of a line of Citroen cars. Is all cultural cachet really just up for sale to the highest bidder?

Pete Townshend of “the who” (who did an ad for the air force at the height of the vietnam war) has said, “These songs are my property. They came out of my head. I have every right to do whatever I want with them. You own your personal reactions to them and whatever memories they evoke for you, but the songs are entirely mine and I will use them any way I like.” And that’s pretty hard to argue against. As this article so adeptly points out:

“Pop by its democratic nature has destroyed barriers and prejudices (good), yet by its capitalistic nature has always been available for cooptation by the power elites (bad)… Nor is this merely a measure of how debased things have become, of how low we’ve sunk since pop’s glory days — whenever you think those were. In any kind of historical perspective, the contradictions of pop culture have always obtained as they obtain now. Pop was never pure, damn it.”

And perhaps that true of all manner of cultural media today – by very nature of its accessibility, it is ripe for overuse/misuse/mixed use. But it’s not just pop songs or icons anymore. And when blatant greed outweighs moral fibre, or loyalty to one’s beliefs, it’s hard to fathom the depths to which society has sunk in pursuit of the almighty dollar. art, music, film all plundered by congomerates with no sense of sanctity or cultural reverence. and stars, writers, singers all eager to prostrate themselves at the temple of crass commercialism.

I don’t know why i still expect any semblance of moral rectitude – nothing is sacred and no one is immune. it just strikes me as a sad commentary on today’s society that the threshold for cashing in seems to get lower with every passing day.

Like this post

Unlike

selling out, the body shop, anita roddick

today is international women’s day.

International Women’s Day is the universal day that connects all women around the world and inspires them to achieve their full potential. IWD 2006 launches another year of working progressively for women’s equality worldwide. It is an important day around the world because the collective power of women is witnessed by milions, and the brave achievements of women past, present and future are respectfully honoured. International Women’s Day 2006 will
be celebrated globally on Wednesday 8 March. Join the action !!

how ironic, in the face of all the efforts to roll back women’s rights to their own bodies recently.

Aletta Jacobs, Margaret Sanger, Marie Stopes – they would all be rolling over in their graves right now. Instead of honouring their memories and building upon their legacy of fighting for women’s rights, we are denigrating their accomplishments.

We’ve fought so hard to control our own destinies and our own bodies, a luxury many women worldwide *still* do not have, and would die for. And we’re throwing it all away through negligence and apathy.

In honour of women everywhere who don’t have choices… donate to international planned parenthood.

Like this post

Unlike

international women's day, planned parenthood, reproductive rights

The thing that really makes me despair lately, the thing which makes me want to run far, far away and never come back, is not the misogynistic ban on abortion in south dakota, and it’s not the sickening homophobic protest at the funerals of soldiers. It’s not the fact that guantanamo detainees who have been deprived of their rights are being deported back to countries where they’re likely to be tortured or executed. It’s not that teenagers think it’s fun to beat up or torch homeless people. it’s not that our sports heros flout the laws for fame and fortune.

It’s what’s reflected in all of these instances, but explicitly addressed in none of them. it is the ever-present, ever-growing naked hostility towards our fellow humans. it’s the undercurrent of a country which is quickly and constantly becoming more divisive and more embattled within its own borders. it’s the anger which runs through the headlines every day, and the fear which hides behind our locked doors. it’s the threat which is implicit in the lines we draw in the sand, and the myopia of our blinded world view. it’s the selfish narcissism and rampant cynicism that shine through our professed values. it’s in the bitter taste of all the politicians lies, and in the knee-jerk reflex of the pundits that pander to them. it’s more pervasive than violence, and more devastating than poverty or lack of education. it is more soul shattering than any one act committed against our country, or by our country.

it’s the slow, sure, torturous death of compassion and understanding. the arteries have hardened. the bell tolls. we’re becoming heartless. as hollow as the statue in new york harbour.

from an outsider’s perspective, it’s blindingly obvious. it’s staggering to sit back and observe from afar the amount of energy and hatred and money invested in shouting back and forth at each other across the issues. it’s mind-numbing to watch the drooling apathy of the public who tune out and turn off because they just can’t stomach any more bad news. it’s painful to watch the backbiting and posturing and blustering that’s broadcast to the world at large, in deliberate and willful ignorance of the impact it has. it is unbelievable to witness the regression of an entire country to imitating a time of cold war and oppression and fear-mongering and religious fervor and callow bravado. didn’t we already get enough of that? haven’t we learned our lessons?

how did we get to this place? how have we become so entrenched in our own sense of righteousness, both individually and collectively, that we cannot extend ourselves towards others? when did we lose our sense of expansiveness? when did our caring end at own front door? when did we become so *hard*?

i can’t identify anymore. i think many people feel lost, and there is anger underneath that sense of sadness. dreams have soured, and no one seems to know how to make it right. i think people are mad at losing the dream. but it’s only wild speculation on my part. i have no real theories, only observations. perhaps this is a transitory phase, much like the unrest of the sixties and seventies. maybe we need some national catharsis. maybe it’s in the swing of the pendulum. maybe we’ll come out better on the other side of it. i can only hope.

because it really can’t get much worse.

Like this post

Unlike